Mobile Phone and Broadband Prices

Baroness Lloyd of Effra Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sikka]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure price increases by mobile phone and broadband companies are fair.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)]

It is important that customers feel empowered in engaging in the telecoms market, and confident that they are getting a fair deal. We support Ofcom in taking action to protect fairness and transparency, and welcome its recent steps to remind consumers of their rights. The Chancellor and Secretary of State have written to the CEO of Ofcom and the CEOs of major telecoms companies urging further, faster action to ensure that consumers are treated fairly.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. Phone and broadband companies such as O2 have violated Ofcom’s voluntary code and imposed unjustified mid-contract price hikes on customers. The old and vulnerable are hit hard, as they are less likely to shop around. Inflation and poverty are baked into the system. As reducing the cost of living is a government objective, will the Minister enact legislation to ban mid-contract price rises? Statutory rights are the only effective antidote to corporate abuse of power.

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

My noble friend is right to highlight the importance of the ability to have the right contract and of giving consumers the information they need. We have no plans to ban in-contract price rises, but consumers have the right to leave, penalty-free, for 30 days from when unexpected price rises are announced by a provider. The Chancellor and Secretary of State asked Ofcom to review the suitability of the current 30-day notice period, to ensure that it can be enacted by consumers who experience unexpected and unannounced mid-contract price rises.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, given that many telecom contracts include mid-contract price rises linked to inflation plus an additional percentage, what steps are the Government taking to protect low-income customers from these above-inflation increases?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The Chancellor and the Secretary of State have asked Ofcom to review the effectiveness of the changes that came in in January 2025, which set out that consumers must get the details in pounds and pence, so that they can have clarity. We have asked Ofcom to see how effective that is and a report will be coming in spring 2026, so that we can be assured that the measures are indeed effective.

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

My Lords, I certainly do not support mid-contract price rises but, arguably, mobile prices in the UK are among the lowest in Europe, which to an extent affects mobile operators’ ability to invest in the world-class mobile infrastructure we need. On that note, can the Minister update us on the progress of the shared rural network, which will bring mobile coverage to so many areas of the country that do not yet have it?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right to stress the importance of investing in our digital infrastructure, both in the mobile network and, I would also say, in the fibre network through Project Gigabit. The shared rural network continues to operate this year, bringing more availability to areas that are not covered. Our mobile coverage is increasing year on year.

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, services such as NHS appointments, banking and even shopping, regrettably, have moved online. The typical cost of broadband is around £400 a year—assuming, of course, that people can afford to buy a phone or computer. A new class of social exclusion is therefore emerging. What assessment have the Government made of this new level of social exclusion and its consequences?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

Earlier this year, the Government published the Digital Inclusion Action Plan, which set out a number of the measures that we are taking, on top of the importance of the digital infrastructure being in place. They include measures on access to devices and the skills and confidence to enter the online world. There are social tariffs that consumers can use; they should contact their providers to make sure that, if they are eligible for them, they can take them up.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness will be aware that the 5% hardest to reach in rural areas are being further disadvantaged by the taking out of landlines. Storm Arwen took all the landlines and mobile phones out over a large area of the north-east and north Yorkshire for nine days. People must be able safely to summon help in an emergency. That will not happen if these landlines are taken out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The resilience of our network is absolutely critical. A fibre network is more resilient to many shocks, so the move to fibre will provide more resilience in the future. It is very important that in this transition from the PSTN to the fibre network, vulnerable customers are supported and have the back-up they need in cases of power cuts, and so on. The transition from the PSTN to the other network has already taken place for a large number of consumers in this country and is well on track towards the final handover.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, can I bore the House again? Our regulators are some of the worst in the world and they are letting the public down. We are not holding them to account. Is it not about time that some of these individuals got sacked and replaced by people who will protect the public?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

There are very important roles for our regulators. There are also very important governance systems in place that govern how regulators work and how they are accountable to Parliament. I do not think there is any case at present to take the action my noble friend suggests.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, in May, the Vodafone-Three merger was completed, reducing the number of mobile operators in the country from four to three. Building on the question from my noble friend Lord Vaizey, six months on from the merger, what is the Government’s assessment of its impact, first on consumer prices and secondly on investment in the infrastructure that improves both the digital economy and rural connectivity?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

As part of that merger, there was a commitment to invest £11 billion in infrastructure. That is a very important part of the continued rollout of our digital infrastructure, and it is monitored through Ofcom’s Connected Nations report, which is published regularly.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, with the growing emphasis and reliance on—and need for—mobile phones and broadband to undertake business and personal issues throughout the UK, and with problems regarding physical impediments in rural areas, will my noble friend the Minister have immediate discussions with her ministerial counterparts in the devolved Administrations to ensure that there is better connectivity with those broadband companies and the regulator, to ensure better access for all?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

It is very important that there is connectivity across all the nations, and geographic coverage targets do include all nations. Many of the programmes in place to support the commercial rollout prioritise those rural areas, including for example in Scotland, Northern Ireland and across the devolved nations, so that all people can benefit from increased connectivity.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I urge the Minister to look at the experience of Northern Ireland because, under the confidence and supply agreement signed with the then Conservative Government, Northern Ireland has the best connectivity anywhere in the United Kingdom. That has shown what an enabler it has been for young people and businesses right across Northern Ireland.

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

That experience indeed shows that good connectivity can provide opportunities for young people to participate in the economy and society. It is our aspiration that all people should have those opportunities.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

One of the big phone companies has started to charge extra to warn customers of fraud and spam calls. Does the Minister agree with me that part of the basic service of a mobile phone company should be to protect its customers and that it should not charge extra for doing that?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The issue of fraud and telecoms is very important. My noble friend Lord Hanson of Flint recently launched a telecoms fraud charter to emphasise how important it is for all telecoms companies to take action on that.

Online Safety Act 2023 (Priority Offences) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Baroness Lloyd of Effra Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Online Safety Act 2023 (Priority Offences) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.

Relevant document: 40th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)]

My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 21 October this year. Before I proceed further, I draw the Committee’s attention to a correction slip issued for these regulations in October for minor drafting changes related to the date of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 in the Explanatory Notes and the order of words for the title of an offence inserted by paragraph 2 of the regulations.

The Government remain firmly committed to tackling the most serious and harmful online behaviours. This statutory instrument strengthens the Online Safety Act by designating new priority offences aimed at addressing cyber flashing and content that encourages self-harm. By doing so, we are ensuring that platforms take more proactive steps to protect users from these damaging harms.

Evidence shows that cyber flashing and material promoting self-harm are widespread and cause significant harm, particularly among younger age groups. In 2025, 9% of 18 to 24 year-olds reported experiencing cyber flashing and 7% encountered content encouraging self-harm in a four-week period. That equates to around 530,000 young adults exposed to cyber flashing and 450,000 to self-harm content. This is unacceptable.

Further, 27% of UK users exposed to cyber flashing reported significant emotional discomfort. There is also compelling evidence that exposure to self-harm content worsens mental health outcomes. A 2019 study found that 64% of Instagram users in the US who saw such content were emotionally disturbed by it. Another study in 2018 revealed that 8% of adults and 26% of children hospitalised after self-harming had encountered related content online. These figures underline that these are not marginal issues—they are widespread and deeply harmful.

As noble Lords will know, the Online Safety Act, which received Royal Assent on 26 October 2023, imposes strong duties on platforms and search services to protect users. Providers must assess the likelihood that their services expose users to illegal content or facilitate priority offences, and then take steps to mitigate those risks; these include safety by design measures and robust content moderation systems.

The Act sets out a list of priority offences for the purposes of illegal content duties. These represent the most serious and prevalent forms of online illegal activity. Platforms must take additional steps to address these offences under their statutory duties. This statutory instrument adds cyber flashing and content encouraging self-harm to the list of priority offences. Currently, these offences fall under the general illegal content duties. Without priority status, platforms are not required to conduct specific risk assessments or implement specific measures to prevent exposure to these harms; that is why we are adding them as priority offences.

Stakeholders have strongly supported these changes. Organisations such as the Molly Rose Foundation and Samaritans have long called for greater protection for vulnerable users. These changes will come into force 21 days after the regulations are made, following approval by both Houses. Ofcom will then set out in its codes of practice the measures that providers should adopt to meet their duties. Our updates to the Act’s safety duties will fully take effect when Ofcom makes these updates about measures that can be taken to fulfil the duties.

We expect Ofcom to recommend actions such as enhanced content moderation; improved reporting and complaints systems; and safety by design measures—for example, testing algorithms to ensure that illegal content is not being promoted. If providers fail to meet their obligations and fail to take proportionate steps to stop this vile material being shared on their services, Ofcom has strong enforcement powers to enforce compliance. These include powers to issue fines of up to £18 million or 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue, whichever is higher.

This statutory instrument upgrades cyber flashing and self-harm content to priority status, reinforcing the Online Safety Act’s protections. Service providers will be required to take more proactive and robust action to detect, remove and limit exposure to these harmful forms of illegal content. This will help ensure that platforms take stronger steps to protect users, reduce the prevalence of these behaviours online and make the internet safer for all. I beg to move.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I hope this is one of those occasions when we agree that what is coming here is a good thing—something that is designed to deal with an evil and thus is necessary. I want just to add a bit of flesh to the bones.

If we have regulation, we must make sure—as we are doing now—that it is enforced. I congratulate the Government on the age-verification activities that were reported on this morning, but can we get a little more about the tone, let us say, with which we are going to look at future problems? The ones we have here—cyber flashing and self-harm—are pretty obviously things that are not good for you, especially for younger people and the vulnerable.

I have in front of me the same figures of those who have experienced disturbing reactions to seeing these things, especially if they did not want to see them. Self-harm is one of those things; it makes me wince even to think about it. Can we make sure that not only those in the industry but those outside it know that action will be taken? How can we report across more? If we do not have a degree of awareness, reporting and everything else gets a bit slower. How do we make sure that everybody who becomes a victim of this activity knows that it is going on?

It is quite clear that the platforms are responsible; everybody knows that. It is about knowing that something is going on and being prepared to take action; that is where we will start to make sure not only that this is unacceptable and action will be taken but that everybody knows and gets in on the act and reporting takes place.

I could go on for a considerable length of time, and I have enough briefing to do so, but I have decided that the Grand Committee has not annoyed me enough to indulge in that today. I congratulate the Minister, but a little more flesh about the action and its tone, and what we expect the wider community to do to make sure this can be enacted, would be very helpful here. Other than that, I totally welcome these actions. Unpleasant as it is that they are necessary, I welcome them and hope that the Government will continue to do this. We are always going to be playing a little bit of catch-up on what happens, but let us make sure that we are running fast and that what is in front of us does not get too far away.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their broad support for adding these offences to the priority offences list. This is an important step in improving the online safety regime and improving the environment in which we all use the internet, particularly children and vulnerable people. This will help fulfil the Government’s commitment to improving online safety and strengthening protections for women and girls.

On the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, about tone and proactivity, it is really important that we communicate what we are doing, both in the online world and in terms of violence against women and girls in the physical world. We know that we must all do more to tackle misogynistic abuse, pile-ons, harassment and stalking, and the Government’s whole approach to tackling violence against women and girls is an active one and is something that we have real, serious goals on. We welcome everyone supporting that move forward. For example, the publication of Ofcom’s guidance, A Safer Life Online for Women and Girls, sets out the steps that services can take to create safer online spaces, and the Government will be setting out our strategy for tackling violence against women and girls in due course as part of that. I think that the publication of Ofcom’s report this morning, which sets out the activity that it has taken and will take, will help raise the profile, as the noble Lord says, about what is expected of services in terms of the urgency and the rigour with which these changes are made.

On the question of VPNs, which we talked about a little earlier, we do not have a huge amount of information or research about their use, particularly by young people to circumvent age assurance. We know that there are legitimate reasons to use VPNs, and we do not have a huge amount of evidence about their use by young people, either very young people or older teenagers. Ofcom and the Government are committed to increasing the research and evidence for how VPNs are being used and whether this is indeed a way that age assurance is being circumvented, or whether it is for what might be legitimate reasons, such as security or privacy reasons. That is an important piece of the evidence puzzle to know exactly what measures to take subsequently.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

I am particularly interested in whether it is a legitimate defence for a platform to say, “We could not have prevented this access because a VPN was in use”, and therefore whether it falls to the platforms themselves to figure out how to prevent abuse via VPNs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

I think we may need to have this conversation together with Ofcom. My understanding is that doing the risk assessments and putting these offences on the priority list increases the level of risk assessment that must be done. When a platform is doing its risk assessment, it will have to take into account the way in which children, young people or other users will access the service. Thus, depending on what its service provided and how people accessed it, if that was a factor that needed taking into account, it would therefore have to take that into account in the controls it was putting in place, as a platform, on the basis of its knowledge of its user base. Thus, it would, perhaps, go to the more conservative as opposed to the more permissive end of controls. That is my understanding, and if it is not correct, I will correct it.

Likewise, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, made points about emerging technology, making sure that this measure is fit for purpose and that we keep all Online Safety Act duties, defences and coverage very much up to speed with what people are experiencing in their daily lives. Many others have raised the issue of AI chatbots, including what is currently covered and not covered under the Act. The Secretary of State has commissioned work on AI chatbot activity to make sure both that there is no gap in coverage and that we are keeping up to speed with the emerging technology.

That is an example of how we want to approach emerging technology: making sure that we are getting all of the best research and information, and, if there are gaps in any areas, plugging them. This is the approach we have taken so far, and it is one we are committed to continuing. Whether enacted through advice, guidance, codes or additional offences, all of those are open to us to take forward, whatever the technology shows.

Those were the main questions that were asked. On enforcement, the point is absolutely well made. Enforcement is good only if platforms and services know that these things will be enforced. We have been very clear that Ofcom has our backing to carry out enforcement activity. We have funded the online safety part of Ofcom year on year to ensure that it has the capacity and resources to enforce whatever it needs to enforce in this area. We are very committed to continuing to protect children online. We welcome Ofcom’s recent consultation on additional measures to build on its safety codes—including additional protections on live streaming, which many have called for, as children should not have harmful content pushed on them and should have age-appropriate experiences.

We remain committed to keeping young people safe online, and we will continue to work closely with campaigners, charities, industries and Ofcom to achieve this goal. We will also work with all civil society campaigners and those with an interest. The Secretary of State has also announced that DSIT will support an NSPCC summit at Wilton Park next year in order to bring together experts and young people to discuss the impact of AI on childhood.

Turning back to the SI under discussion, today’s update is another step towards a safer digital environment—one that protects the most vulnerable and addresses emerging risks. I thank the Committee and, on that basis, I commend these regulations to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Data Adequacy Status: EU Data Protection Standards

Baroness Lloyd of Effra Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the European Commission’s decision of 24 June to extend the United Kingdom’s data adequacy status until 27 December; and what steps they are taking to ensure that the United Kingdom’s new Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 maintains alignment with the EU data protection standards needed for a future adequacy agreement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government welcomed the publication of the European Commission’s draft adequacy decisions in July, which concluded that the UK continues to provide an essentially equivalent level of data protection. The EU’s six-month extension allowed the Commission to consider the reforms made by the Data (Use and Access) Act. I look forward to the successful completion of the adoption process ahead of the 27 December deadline this year.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, I am very pleased with that reply from the Minister. What I am mostly concerned about is the loss of the provisions relating to law enforcement, particularly the real-time exchange of information, on which our intelligence authorities and police authorities have historically relied. That is no longer available to us; in what is undoubtedly a very dangerous world, surely that is a priority for the discussions that will take place now and in the future on the whole question of data adequacy with our European neighbours.

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord. He brings a great deal of experience over the years in many areas of data protection legislation, anti-money laundering and the security side. Since the UK and EU leaders’ summit on 19 May, we have been working with the EU to increase the safety and security of UK and EU citizens, to respond to shared threats, and to support police investigations, including through enhanced data exchange. We continue to work and meet closely with the EU on these matters.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, the Government are trying to hit a moving target, as far as I can see. The EU is adopting a new digital omnibus, which will change EU GDPR. How confident are the Government about being able to get a decision from the EU in time?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

To take that question in two parts, we are confident about the EU’s scrutiny of our legislation. The Commission has started its review and published the report that I mentioned in July. The European Data Protection Board published a non-legally binding opinion on its draft decision on 20 October. We are confident that a member state vote will take place ahead of the 27 December deadline. The EU’s proposals to change its data protection framework have only recently been published. We will have a look at the details of those changes as and when they become clear and are confirmed.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, related to data security is superintelligent AI. Many recent reports have suggested that this is a huge threat to our global security. Are we discussing this with the EU and other international partners to try to mitigate some of the potential damage that could be caused by it?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

We continue to look at all potential AI threats and are immensely assisted in this by the work of the AI Security Institute, which has deepened our understanding of critical security threats posed by all sorts of frontier AI and the type that the noble Lord mentioned. We continue to talk about this to international partners.

[Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)]

My Lords, this is not just about legal frameworks; what is also important is the physical security of some of the data structures. Are we in discussions with other European partners, in particular with Ireland, to ensure that their undersea cables are secure, not just undersea but when they enter the mainland?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right that there are risks to undersea cables. I shall have to come back to her on the precise discussions that we have had with Ireland, as I am not completely up to speed with those, but it is something that we are very well aware of in general. We have taken forward a lot of discussions with industry and others about it.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, when it comes to data adequacy, the Government are, of course, aware of a report from the UK Statistics Authority that said:

“Quality problems have manifested into published errors, delays, and de-accreditation of official statistics”.


That is pretty damning stuff. Can the Minister tell us what is going to be done now to improve the situation? Flying blind is surely really rather dangerous in the present world circumstances, particularly for this Government.

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. I think about the adequacy of the Office for National Statistics and some of the information that it provides, which we all rely on. In terms of the particular programme of enhancement, I shall need to come back to him on that point to set out what is being done in that area.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, if, as the Minister says, this is such an important matter, why did it not merit a single mention in the Chancellor’s speech on the Budget?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

On the issue of data adequacy agreements with the EU, I think we are proceeding quite adequately in terms of the process of it scrutinising our data protection regulations. We are confident that the 27 December deadline will be met.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

Is there a relationship here with concerns over IP and copyright, because our rules for data reuse are relevant to alignment with the EU?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The noble Earl asks a very interesting question but one which I am afraid, again, I am unable to give him any deep answer on. I shall have to revert to him on IP in particular.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords, in view of the high stakes for UK services in digital trade with the 27 December deadline fast approaching, will the Government publish the adequacy risk assessment and correspondence that they have shared with the Commission, redacted where necessary, so that Parliament and stakeholders can see how they have satisfied themselves that the Data (Use and Access) Act is not put at risk?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

My understanding is that there is a lot of to and fro, and many requests between the EU and UK of a very technical nature to allow the European Commission to make its judgment. Quite a lot of those have been published already, in the European Commission report and in the European Data Protection Board’s opinion. The process by which this is set out is already transparent and clear.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, on the assumption that we get approval on 27 December, will my noble friend the Minister move quickly to make sure, as per the economic reset with the EU, that we reduce trade barriers and boost economic growth, which has been held back in this country by Brexit for far too long?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

My noble friend is right that the importance of digital trade to the UK and its exposure to the EU is a very significant part of our digital trade agreement, as are the relationships that underpin this. As a testament to the way in which the reset is happening, we welcome the state visit of the German President here today.

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

My Lords, to follow up on what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said to the Minister, digital trade is so important. The previous Government led the way with digital trade agreements, particularly with countries such as Singapore. As chair of the UK-ASEAN Business Council, I see how important these digital trade agreements are and how the UK leads the way as a member of the CPTPP and an observer at ASEAN. I hope that the Minister will keep her nerve as we start to reset our relationship with our largest trading partner, just 20 miles across the channel—the EU.

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

That is a very good point. I was able to discuss with my Malaysian counterpart the potential for a digital trade agreement when I was in Kuala Lumpur earlier this year. I very much hope that we can progress that to promote digital trade—and likewise with the EU. I assure the noble Lord that the Government are working extremely actively to progress the EU reset.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, is this not just another example of the disaster of Brexit, which was spelled out, in all places, in the Telegraph a couple of weeks ago, demonstrating the damage that has been done to the country? Do we not need to speed up our relations and discussions to get back to some sensible agreement with our main trading partner in Europe?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

My noble friend is right about the importance of making swift progress to reset the relationship to promote trade and get all the agreements in place under the EU reset, which goes from everything from energy to defence and security—all sorts of areas where we can make real progress to support the UK economy.

Children: Age Verification and Virtual Private Networks

Baroness Lloyd of Effra Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Benjamin]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what measures have been put in place to prevent children using virtual private networks to avoid age verification to access harmful material online.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)]

The Online Safety Act requires services to use highly effective age assurance to prevent children in the UK from encountering harmful content. Ofcom’s guidance makes it clear that age assurance must be robust to prevent circumvention. Services must also take steps to mitigate against circumvention methods that are easily accessible to children. Providers that do not comply with their child safety duties by deliberately promoting the use of VPNs could face enforcement action under the Act.

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, Childnet has discovered an increase in the use of VPNs by children in the last three months. While younger children are deterred by age-verification checks, teenagers actively seek out and share methods to circumvent them. Many minors are downloading free VPN applications that often monetise user data and expose devices to viruses. Also, by relocating to countries with few or no internet safety laws, children can be exposed to more extreme, illegal or unmoderated content. Perhaps children under 16 should be banned from social media altogether. What action will the Government take to address the increasing number of children using VPNs? Will they instruct Ofcom to follow the lead of the Australian e-safety commissioner and require that digital services check VPN traffic for technical and behavioural red flags that suggest a user in the UK may be a child? Let us act sooner rather than later.

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

We recognise the international efforts to better protect children online, including in Australia, and we are working with the Australian Government to understand the impact of their policies, including that one. There is currently limited evidence on how many children use VPNs, and the Government are addressing this evidence gap. We welcome any further evidence in this area, such as that quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, to complement our understanding. The Government will ensure that we act where we need to, as we have seen in other areas, and that future interventions are proportionate and evidence based.

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

My Lords, this is a complex and difficult area. I often praise the work of Ofcom in implementing the Online Safety Act, and everyone thinks I am applying to be the chair of Ofcom: I am not. I do however think that the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, is a very interesting one. A lot of research needs to be done, and it would be interesting to see the VPN research. There is another huge gap in researching the technology used in our schools by edtech providers, and in providing some kind of quality framework to ensure that this technology—how it collects our children’s data, and so on—is at least transparent and known about, so that requisite action can be taken in the future.

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a very good point about the need for accurate, evidence-based research that allows us to take the right action. As noble Lords may have seen, Ofcom published a report this morning setting out a number of methods for researching, for example, the use of VPNs by children. We should also examine technological solutions, as well as advice and guidance, and the role of Ofcom in enforcing the requirements of the Online Safety Act.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, while it is of course important that platforms maintain the standards Ofcom has set for them, does my noble friend the Minister also agree that parents have an important role to play in all of this to make sure that the parental controls on devices are implemented in full? Is there not more of a role for digital literacy for adults, to make sure they are keeping a proper eye on what their children are doing and that they comply with the regulations?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a very important point about the role of all of us in using the technology available to protect ourselves and to equip ourselves to be safe online, and for parents to do that in respect of their children. It is also very important that the Government support literacy campaigns, both for digital skills and online safety. The Government will play their part in supporting parents in that domain.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

On the Radio 4 “Today” programme this morning, Ofcom admitted that none of the three fines levied so far has been paid. Is it not right that Ofcom should be encouraged to take much stronger enforcement action against those who do not pay by making it clear that within a very short time, they will lose their right to appear on any screen in the United Kingdom unless their enforcement is fit for purpose?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

I think we all agree that enforcement is an incredibly important part of the Online Safety Act. Ofcom’s enforcement powers include fines of up to £18 million, or 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue. The Government have been very clear to Ofcom that it has our full backing to take enforcement action. We are standing right behind it to do that as effectively as possible.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister says that the Government are standing right behind Ofcom. Many of us very strongly support Ofcom’s actions in fining those such as the AVS Group for not observing proper age checks on their sites. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, indicates, there is no point in having fines unless we have proper enforcement. What resource are the Government satisfied Ofcom has to pursue enforcement?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

We have ensured that Ofcom is resourced to implement its online safety duties and have increased the amount available to it year on year; its budget is, I think, £92 million to support all its Online Safety Act responsibilities. We believe that it has the resources it needs to effectively implement and supervise the Online Safety Act.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Following on from noble Lords’ comments, to me it is quite clear that Ofcom has a lot of the powers necessary to restrict underage usage but seems to lack the will. That was abundantly clear from the Radio 4 interview this morning. My experience in such matters is that the Ofcom leadership really needs to understand the strength of feeling in this House and Parliament as a whole—that they need to be more robust in enforcement. Will the Minister agree to arrange a meeting with the Ofcom CEO and key Lords here today so that we can fully hold Ofcom to account on this?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an important point about the strength of feeling here, which was replicated in the discussions yesterday in the Select Committee. I am very happy to take forward his request to set up a meeting with Ofcom.

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, given the Church of England’s role in education, I welcome the age limits introduced for harmful material sites. However, it is very hard to police the use of VPNs, and thus education is likely to be needed in a great deal of cases, as well as enforcement. What role will Ofsted’s new framework play in ensuring that statutory relationships, sex and health education is delivered effectively with regard to this matter?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

I thank the right reverend Prelate for that question. The importance of digital skills and media literacy was highlighted as a recommended area in the curriculum and assessment review, and we will be responding to that. On his point about relationships education, I will have to come back to him.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

I commend my Government for the action they are taking on the Online Safety Act. It is a bit rich for the party opposite, who dragged their heels for several years, to talk about the implementation of this. I do not know how many noble Lords here would know how to download a VPN and then choose a country which has no age-verification rules. It is clear that there are teenagers who can do this. Is Ofcom researching this? Is it assessing these risks and will it be bringing forward solutions?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

My noble friend highlights the complexity of some of these issues and the importance of understanding exactly the use of VPNs by adults and children, and whether they are indeed being used to circumvent the age-assurance aspects of the Online Safety Act. Ofcom, as it set out this morning, is researching the use of VPNs in many areas, particularly their use by children of all ages—older as well as younger children.

Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure (Security Requirements for Relevant Connectable Products) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2025

Baroness Lloyd of Effra Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 13 October be approved.

Considered in Grand Committee on 19 November.

Motion agreed.

ExxonMobil: Mossmorran

Baroness Lloyd of Effra Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, this is quite clearly a blow for the area of Fife, and especially for the direct and indirect workers of the plant. Just as the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, said, our thoughts go to them and their families as they seek to find ways of coming to terms with the blow.

The closure will see many highly qualified and specialised workers laid off at a time of severe cost of living pressures. The company has talked about supporting its employers and possible relocation available for some, but what about contractors and the wider supply chain? As far as I am aware, no task force has yet been set up to manage this, so can the Minister please update your Lordships’ House on how the wider workforce will be helped as this crisis bites? It is reported that only around 50 staff are being offered jobs, and nearly 500 miles away in Hampshire. Can the Minister confirm how many have actually agreed to relocate? What are the Government doing to protect and create highly skilled, high-quality jobs located for those who cannot move far from their homes, their communities and their wider family? More generally, much is made of the transition to net zero, which we wholeheartedly support, but there is a danger of the old jobs disappearing more quickly than the new ones are being created, and this mismatch will make growth very difficult, if not impossible.

There has, not unexpectedly, been some finger-pointing—indeed, we just saw some—trying to work out who is to blame for this. But we should understand that this plant has been in trouble and making a loss for five years. If economic and trading environments are causing the closure, both this Government and the last Government are culpable. But I also point to Brexit. All the products made at Mossmorran are exported to the EU. Can the Minister outline how much Brexit contributed to the plant’s demise? Given that there will no longer be these exports from the plant, what is the effect on our balance of trade?

This is, of course, a further blow for the Scottish economy and UK-wide manufacturing, and it comes fast on the heels of other company closures. The common denominator seems to be a combination of long-standing depressed demand alongside the policy environment—and the overwhelming issue, as noted by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, is the cost of energy. Energy was a problem when the noble Lord was in government and it remains a problem now. This is not to downplay today’s news confirming the £420 million a year committed to reduce electricity costs for the UK’s most energy-intensive industries—but that is jam tomorrow; it does not start until 2027.

There is a desperate need for further and more rapid intervention, as many UK chemicals operations face risk of closure before the British industrial competitiveness scheme, as it is called, comes into effect the year after next. There also remains considerable uncertainty about which businesses will benefit from this new support. Can the Minister fill us in on what the process will be for deciding which businesses and sectors qualify for this subsidy? What specific steps are the Government taking for the here and now? We understand what is happening in 2027, and we have seen the long look into the future that is called the industrial strategy, but what is happening now? We need to find a way of making sure that there is long-term investment in our manufacturing and chemicals industry.

The Scottish Government have a responsibility for the economy and jobs in Scotland, so why is there no meaningful mention of them in the Statement? Will the Minister outline what conversations were being had with the Scottish Government and when, and how the Minister sees the role of the Scottish Government going forward?

To conclude, energy-intensive industries are in decline across the UK. Every chemical business across the UK is paying more for its energy than competitors elsewhere, as was the case under the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, as much as 400% higher than in America. Closures at Grangemouth, Prax Lindsey and now Mossmorran risk forcing downstream operators to import resources at higher cost. Britain’s once dominant chemical industry is continuing to suffer. The UK’s chemical output has reached its lowest level for a decade. The latest business survey of members of the Chemical Industries Association shows that 60% of chemical businesses report falling sales with a further 20% seeing no growth. More worryingly, many report strategic reviews.

Closures reduce our already dwindling industrial capacity and reduce our ability to deliver essential materials for our country’s critical national infrastructure, be it health, energy, food or defence. If the Government want to continue to have a chemical industry, then we need much more action to address these unsustainable costs.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords for their statements today, and I entirely agree that our thoughts are with the workers and the families of those affected by the closure.

While this Government inherited a precarious economic position from the previous Administration, it is imperative that we continue to move forward and pursue the right pro-innovation, pro-business policies which generate growth. We were disappointed to learn of Exxon’s announcement of the closure of its Fife ethylene plant. This follows months of engagement with the company and a commitment to explore all the opportunities to retain the site’s operations. However, it is my understanding that there was no credible buyer for the plant. Of course, if there are potential purchasers who wish to explore what is possible, the Government would be happy to work with them. We would be happy to find a solution, whether that is the ongoing operation of the plant or repurposing the site for new uses.

As noble Lords will know, the Government and ExxonMobil have been discussing the operating environment around the plant since April, and officials endeavoured to meet Exxon every week since August. Last weekend, Ministers from across government were in contact with the company to discuss this decision, and I expect there will be further conversations over the coming months. The Minister for Industry was clear that the Government are prepared to step in and support industry where it is feasible to do so, as we did with Harland & Wolff, Tata Steel and most recently British Steel. Sadly, in this instance, the Government are not able to provide support without a fundamentally sound business proposition. No intervention would represent value for money without one.

We know that it is a concerning time for those affected, which is why our focus is now on supporting the workforce. The Minister for Industry met Unite to explore options for supporting the affected employees, and Exxon is taking steps to mitigate the impact of its closure decision, as any responsible company would, with some employees being retained to support the decommissioning of the site and others being offered relocation and training packages to Exxon’s other assets at Fawley and Southampton. Discussions about the precise allocation of those roles are ongoing and I cannot confirm at this time exactly how many people have decided to make the transition to other sites. Regrettably, this falls short of supporting the entire workforce in finding new employment, which is why the Department for Work and Pensions is engaged in supporting those impacted. Officials in the department are also in contact with representatives from Fife Council and the Scottish Government and are working together on a task force to provide further support. Today, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland met the Scottish Government and the Fife local authority to convene the first of those discussions and will continue with that task force over the coming months.

I stress that this closure is not representative of UK industry as a whole. Through our modern industrial strategy, we are channelling support to the eight growth sectors of the economy, including clean energy, defence and advanced manufacturing—all areas in which Scotland is incredibly strong. Far from being uninvestable, since July, we have seen more than £250 billion of investment committed into the UK, alongside 450,000 jobs. Only recently, we have seen further investment into AI growth zones and small modular reactors.

Both noble Lords talked about energy costs. Your Lordships know that bringing down energy costs for British businesses is a key part of our industrial strategy. Although it is important to note that electricity costs were not a major factor behind this site’s closure, we are pressing ahead with unprecedented support for our energy-intensive industries so that they can properly compete and win in the global economy. Last month, we pledged to increase the discount on electricity network charges from 60% to 90% for businesses in sectors such as steel, cement, glass and chemicals; this discount will slash costs for a whole host of businesses not just in England but across the UK. We know that around 550 of our most energy-intensive businesses will save up to £420 million a year on their electricity bills from next April thanks to this one change.

To that end, our new British industrial competitiveness scheme, announced for consultation today, will reduce electricity costs for more than 7,000 eligible manufacturing businesses. We want to save them up to £40 per megawatt hour, or up to 25%, from April 2027; that will cover the foundational and frontier areas, as defined in the industrial strategy. This will be subject to further consultation, as set out in the papers today.

On the point about engaging and working with the devolved Governments, the Scottish Government have been heavily involved in the ExxonMobil discussions, with meetings at the highest level. I thank my colleagues, both there and in the UK Government, who have been engaging on this issue for such a long time and trying to find a way forward. We will continue to work constructively together both to support the hard-working employees of the Fife plant and to ensure that they are fully supported over the coming weeks and months.

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, last week was another sad one for the UK oil and petrochemicals industry, as well as for the company employees, contractors and those in the general supply chain who rely on it. The imminent closure of Mossmorran comes in addition to the Grangemouth and Lindsey refineries. What comes next? There is not much left.

Mr Greenwood, the chairman of ExxonMobil UK, mentioned four reasons why the plant at Mossmorran is being closed. Due to time, I will concentrate on just one: the decline in a cheap and abundant source of ethane from the North Sea. We know that there is a large untapped supply of ethane in the North Sea, but this Government have increased taxation on the producers in various ways to prohibit them making any money—making them less competitive—and have prevented any more licences being issued in this basin. This has a snowball effect of closing the North Sea down, reducing a revenue stream to the Exchequer and seeing the workforce continue to fall, as well as, by inference, increasing hydrocarbon imports from overseas where job numbers go from strength to strength.

Equally important are the significantly increasing carbon emissions on a global scale. Just because the imports arrive in the UK emissions-free does not mean that we are not responsible for the increase in emissions from our own production, which are significantly less. Production continues elsewhere in the world and its subsequent transport for our use is more emissions-intensive.

Does the Minister agree with me that this country must, therefore, ensure the continued and increased flow of North Sea hydrocarbon production, rather than having to increasingly purchase product from overseas? This would keep the significant but rapidly reducing onshore and offshore oil and gas industry alive for the foreseeable future; more importantly, it would keep the remaining jobs secure. Electricity generation, green or otherwise, will not satisfy our complete energy needs for many decades to come—if ever—so why do this Government continue to penalise this nation?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

We are co-ordinating the scale-up of industries that will shape the future of the North Sea, going as far as wider offshore wind, carbon capture and storage and hydrogen. The Government have committed over £9.4 billion in investment to carbon capture, with a total of £22 billion for hydrogen and carbon capture this Parliament. That is a huge, positive step for our economy and for jobs in the North Sea.

Furthermore, the clean energy jobs plan—which has £20 million of funding from the UK and Scottish Governments—will support oil and gas workers in training to access the opportunities in clean energy to create the jobs of the future. Looking at the last few years, there was a 75% reduction in oil and gas production between 1999 and 2024. So this is a very long-term trend in the availability of carbon products from the North Sea, not something that has happened just in recent times.

[Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer noble Lords to my registered interests. I welcome the Minister’s statement, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, about the establishment of a task force, which has happened since the Statement was made in the other place. I declare an interest as a former Industry Minister in Scotland, where there has been experience over the last 25 years of how to respond to closures such as these. Those sorts of task forces, to work well, need to be quickly established, as we have seen in this case. However, they also need to focus as broadly as possible, including on opportunities for outplacement, retraining, preferential access to local colleges, dedicated pathways into other employment opportunities and on the future of the site itself, involving remediation and the possible identification of other investors who would be interested, if not in plastics production, then in associated activity.

For all these reasons, can the Minister confirm the breadth of the scope of the task force? Can she also confirm that His Majesty’s Government will work very closely with the Scottish Government, which have their own PACE initiative—the partnership for continuing employment—in cases such as these?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

My noble friend makes some very important points about the importance of swift and collaborative action, partnership with all those who can assist in supporting the workers in this situation and looking at their individual needs and the economic opportunities that are available today, and training them for the future.

She is right that the task force has been established, and my right honourable friend Douglas Alexander met with Fife Council and the Scottish Government earlier today. The Government are committed to working with them to deliver a local response and, more broadly, to mitigate the impact on workers. That will include working with the partnership action for continuing employment and looking to support the 50 employees who are going to be retained to support the decommissioning until 2028, as well as the 50 who are being offered relocation and training packages to Exxon’s other assets.

My noble friend makes a very good point about looking broadly and making sure that this is in the context of the local economy.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister know any chief financial officer who talks down prospects for their company? Why does she think the Chancellor spent nine months talking down the UK economy, which has contributed to Grangemouth, Mossmorran and other factories closing down and the subsequent loss of jobs?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

I do not agree with that commentary on our approach to the economy. In fact, I want to take some time to talk about the positive signs in the UK economy. The UK was the fastest-growing G7 economy over the first half of the year, with cumulative GDP growth at 0.9%. The IMF forecast the UK to be the second-fastest-growing economy in the G7 in 2025 and the third-fastest in 2026. I am sure that noble Lords frequently hear the Chancellor and the Prime Minister talking about the value of the inward investment into the United Kingdom. They have been integral to securing that inward investment, as this is an extremely investable country.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, it is clearly a tragedy for the petrochemical industry in terms of this plant in Scotland. However, in a way, it is only a precursor for the tsunami that is about to happen to the steel industry if we are not careful. As a third country to the European Union—which we unfortunately are now, due to the Conservative Party—we will now face 50% tariffs on our steel industry, 80% of our exports of which go to the European Union. Can the Minister update us on what her department is doing to prevent that wiping out of the UK steel industry that is about to happen, given our third country status?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The steel industry is incredibly important to the Government. As noble Lords know, the Government have taken action in respect of British Steel, and, as I outlined earlier, in respect of energy costs for the industry. My department has been engaging in discussions with EU counterparts on this to ensure that we properly understand what is going on. We will always take action to protect our industry.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, if no one else has another question, I will ask a very quick one. The Minister referred to £250 billion-worth of inward investment and 450,000 jobs that will be created. I do not expect her to have this information to hand, but would she be willing to commit to write to noble Lords who have participated in this debate with a list of the amounts dedicated, by whom, where and when, et cetera, particularly in reference to jobs? That is because, as we know, since the Government have taken power, 177,000 jobs have been lost.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

Yes, I am quite happy to write as a follow-up. I think I said £250 billion, and I originally meant to say 45,000 jobs. I apologise; that was my error—but I can follow up on that point.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Just to prolong the agony for slightly longer, when the Minister was answering the noble Lord’s question on oil and gas, she came up with a long list of very creditable investments and changes that are going on. When I was asking my question, I referred to the relative speed of creating jobs versus losing them. Does she accept that it is much easier and quicker to lose jobs than to create them? It is very important that this creative process keeps pace with the destruction process, otherwise we will lose even more skills than we are already.

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

It is indeed very important that we continue to create jobs in highly productive, well-paid sectors, and that we provide the skills and training to a broad base of young and older people to take advantage of that. Whether that is through large, single-site companies or through the plethora of SMEs that can create jobs, it is important that we continue to focus on the productivity of our economy, so I agree with that point.

House adjourned at 7.59 pm.

Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure (Security Requirements for Relevant Connectable Products) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2025

Baroness Lloyd of Effra Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure (Security Requirements for Relevant Connectable Products) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2025.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)]

Thank you very much. These draft regulations will be made under powers provided by the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022, also known as PSTI. The world-leading PSTI regulatory regime came into force on 29 April 2024. It better protects consumers, businesses and the wider economy from the harms associated with cyberattacks on consumer connectable products, such as mobiles, smart appliances and smart cameras.

The law does so by banning the use of universal default or easily guessable passwords, such as “admin123”, reducing one of the most commonly exploited vulnerabilities in connectable products. Manufacturers must also ensure that they are transparent about the minimum length of time for which they will provide the much-needed security updates that patch vulnerabilities. They must also publish information on how to report security vulnerabilities directly to them and provide status updates about the reported issues.

The PSTI Act was the world’s first legislation of its kind, but we are not alone in our commitment to improve the security of connected products. The UK advocates an industry-led, multi-stakeholder approach to standardisation, ensuring that technology and cyber standards are market driven, reflecting global best practices and delivering benefits for industry and citizens—contrasting with government-driven approaches, where standards are sometimes used to pursue political goals and ambitions.

Across the world, countries that share our values are taking action. Two such countries are Japan and Singapore. Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry launched the Japan cyber-security technical assessment requirements labelling scheme for IoT products —JC-STAR—in March 2025. Similarly, the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore launched its cybersecurity labelling scheme for consumer smart devices in March 2020. Both the Japanese and Singaporean labelling schemes require manufacturers to ensure that their products meet a set of baseline security requirements that are based on the global standards of the cybersecurity for consumer internet of things from the European Telecommunications Standards Institute, also known as ETSI EN 303 645. This is a standard that the UK developed in partnership with over 90 other countries and to which we aligned our own security requirements.

Officials have carefully reviewed the requirements of the schemes, and they both require unique passwords, vulnerability reporting and a period of product support. As such, products issued with a valid label under either scheme will therefore have an equivalent or greater level of cybersecurity than that required under the UK’s PSTI regime. There is, therefore, no security advantage in duplicating compliance processes for manufacturers that have already met these equivalent or higher security standards. Our focus is on removing undue burdens from businesses, reducing unnecessary costs and opening the door for UK businesses to succeed in markets around the world. Subject to the approval of this House, this draft instrument will establish two alternative routes for manufacturers of consumer connectable products to demonstrate compliance with the UK’s product security regime.

I shall move on to the amendments. Regulations 4 and 8 amend the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure (Security Requirements for Relevant Connectable Products) Regulations 2023 to provide for deemed compliance with the requirement, under Section 9 of the 2022 Act, that relevant connectable products must be accompanied by a statement of compliance. Under new Regulation 4A of and new Schedule 2A to the 2023 regulations, a manufacturer will be deemed to have complied with this requirement where the relevant connectable product carries a valid label under Japan’s JC-STAR STAR-1 labelling scheme or a label under any level of the Singapore cybersecurity labelling scheme. Regulations 5 to 7 amend Schedule 2 to the 2023 regulations to provide for deemed compliance with the relevant security requirements set out in Schedule 1 to those regulations, where a manufacturer’s product carries either of these labels and where that label is valid. Regulation 3 inserts definitions of the Japan JC-STAR STAR-1 scheme and the Singapore cybersecurity labelling scheme into the 2023 regulations for the purposes of these deeming provisions.

The UK’s Department for Science, Innovation and Technology signed MoUs on working towards co-operation on cybersecurity—including the possibility of mutual recognition of our respective consumer internet of things cybersecurity regimes—with Singapore and Japan, on 23 October and 5 November respectively. When both MoUs come into effect, UK businesses will benefit from streamlined access to the Japanese and Singaporean labelling schemes, boosting their product credibility and market appeal in those regions.

Cybersecurity is not just a technical issue; it is a strategic priority. By aligning with like-minded nations and reducing unnecessary barriers to trade, we are strengthening our digital resilience, supporting UK businesses and protecting consumers. The UK must continue to lead by example by championing the global adoption of cybersecurity standards and advancing mutual recognition, which are vital parts of establishing a trusted global supply chain of connected products.

This instrument will extend and apply to the whole of the United Kingdom and will have practical effect throughout the United Kingdom. I hope that the Committee will recognise the importance of these regulations. I beg to move.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I have some sympathy for the Minister, with this being her first time going into something like this. This is not an area that I usually cover. Acronym hell may not be here, but you can see it from the edge of this debate.

Basically, we are talking about something that makes trade easier and compatible. The instrument talks about making sure that things are safer in the current digital age. That is all to the good, but I have a couple of questions. How are we doing ongoing equivalence and oversight? How are we looking to make sure that we stay in touch with the regimes? How much are foreign regimes being monitored to make sure that this is all ongoing and happening?

Also, what about the economic quantification? That is an important way of asking how practical it is, especially for smaller users and consumers in this field. Are we doing anything to make sure that it is practical and will work if you are an SME? That is very important because we may have made a wonderful thing that looks great on paper and in theory—probably on a computer screen, in this case—but how will it work in practice? How are we going to monitor that on the way through?

Of course, a degree of congratulation is in order to any Government who make trade easier. How will this measure be used to make trade easier? Can the Minister give an example of how trade will be done more easily? I am struggling for the right word, but how will we make our regime more compatible with other regimes? Our biggest trading partner is still the European Union. How will our regime be more compatible with the EU’s? These are just a few things I hope the Minister will clarify when she responds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

I thank both noble Lords for the fact that we find ourselves in agreement on the fundamental principle underlying this SI: common cybersecurity standards that facilitate trade are a good step forward for the UK and for global cybersecurity.

I come to some of the questions raised. Regarding how this regime will be enforced, the Office for Product Safety and Standards is the regulator of the PSTI regime. It has a comprehensive set of enforcement powers and can act against any business found to be non-compliant. Only products with a valid, unexpired label, under either the Japanese or the Singaporean scheme, can be made available, and if a product is subsequently found to have a security risk, the enforcement body—the OPSS—can act in line with its published enforcement policy to ensure that consumers are protected from harm.

Equally, Japan and Singapore have regulators overseeing their regimes. The Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore are responsible for enforcing their respective labelling schemes. Although the mutual recognition pathway streamlines compliance, it does not remove accountability, and the OPSS will continue to monitor market activity and enforce if it sees any security failures. In addition, the Government will continue to engage with our international partners to ensure that the recognised schemes remain aligned with UK standards. That is part of this proposal.

In respect of the EU, ETSI EN 303 645 is the international standard for consumer devices, and EU members follow it. As noble Lords will know, the EU has the CRA, which covers more than the PSTI, some of which has not yet come into effect. We are considering how best to align with that regime, which is quite different in nature.

If the standards change fundamentally, both MoUs allow us to disengage, and the SI applies to these specific Japanese and Singaporean standards only. If they change too much, it would be invalid. That should provide some reassurance that these standards are equivalent, there are processes to ensure that they remain equivalent, and we can disengage if we need to.

On the question of business impact and how to make the most of it, it is true that the trade corridors for manufactured goods between us and Japan and Singapore are perhaps not the most active. However, the latest figures show that in 2024 approximately £183 million of exports to Japan and £442 million of imports were goods potentially within the scope of PSTI. For Singapore, those figures were £84 million of exports and £88 million of imports. We are keen to publicise and make it clear that these regimes will enable those businesses that can take advantage of them to do so, along with all our normal trade promotion activities. I hope that that addresses the questions raised by noble Lords.

To conclude: as we know, we have more connected products than ever. It is very rare to find a UK household that does not own a connected product, and this connectivity brings convenience but also risks. The cyber- security regulatory landscape is evolving and countries around the world, such as Japan and Singapore, are introducing similar regimes. We are keen to keep our leadership in this space by co-operating with like-minded regimes.

The draft instrument we have considered today will ensure that the UK remains a global leader in product cybersecurity, while strengthening our position as an attractive destination for digital innovation and trade. We are reducing regulatory burdens and supporting UK businesses to bring compliant products to our market. This is a practical step forward in our mission to drive economic growth and build a more resilient digital economy. It complements efforts to harmonise security standards across other major economies in partnerships with, for example, Brunei, the UAE, Australia, Germany, Finland, South Korea, Canada, Japan, Singapore and Hungary via the global cybersecurity labelling initiative.

With forecasts suggesting that the global IoT market will grow to 24.1 billion devices by 2030, generating over £1 trillion of annual revenue, it is more essential than ever that we enhance the security of connected products on a global scale. This is a good step towards achieving this goal. I look forward to working further on this and commend the instrument to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Lloyd of Effra Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 17th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1B to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1C.

1C: Because it would weaken workers’ rights to guaranteed hours.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Motion A, I will speak also to Motions C and C1. In this group, we will be debating the amendments relating to zero-hours contracts and seasonal work.

Amendment 1B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, would require employers to write to workers at the end of each reference period, explaining their right to receive the guaranteed-hours offer and giving them the option to accept or decline. I take this opportunity once again to thank the noble Lord for his contribution throughout the Bill. We agree on many of the fundamentals relating to the security of work, and we have commonality in wanting to protect workers from precarious employment.

I recognise that the intent and sentiment behind the amendment is to ensure a balanced and practical approach, and I share the noble Lord’s desire for the Bill to work for businesses and workers alike. I look forward to further conversations with him on this matter and beyond, when we will continue our programme of consultation to ensure that the Bill’s measures are delivered effectively and proportionately for business.

However, the amendment as drafted would alter fundamental aspects of the Bill. We are building an economy based on fair competition between businesses, greater productivity in the workplace, job security for workers and a fair reward for hard work. We need to tackle exploitative zero-hours contracts that leave some staff unable to plan their working lives or manage their family finances, and the provisions in the Bill do that. We appreciate that some groups value the flexibility that zero-hour contracts can provide. Those workers will be able to decline a guaranteed-hours offer and remain on their existing arrangements if that works best for them. I hope noble Lords agree that ending exploitative zero-hours contracts and providing security for the workers who need it most is imperative.

Motion C relates to Amendment 48B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. The Government are fully aware that work in certain sectors fluctuates throughout the year, and we recognise the importance of those sectors. That is why consideration of seasonal work is built into the right to guaranteed-hours provisions. There are several ways in which an employer could approach seasonal demand. One approach would be to use annualised-hours contracts, which allow employers to vary the number of hours worked at different times of the year. Some businesses already use these contracts, ensuring that they can account for fluctuating demands in work when planning, while enabling workers to plan for household budgeting. Additionally, the Bill already allows guaranteed-hours offers to take the form of limited-term contracts where reasonable. The Bill also provides powers to address seasonal work through regulations, ensuring flexibility as needs evolve.

We will consult with employers, trade unions and stakeholders before making regulations. It is paramount that stakeholders are engaged with before we make these necessary decisions. Through the introduction of the new right to guaranteed hours, work will become more secure and predictable. It will leave workers in some of the most deprived areas less exposed to the hidden costs of insecure work, which can add up to as much as £50 a month for some, while strengthening the foundations that underpin a modern economy. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Geddes) (Con)]

The Minister’s enthusiasm got the better of her but I had not actually put the Question that the amendments and reasons be now considered. I hope the House will take it that we did so do, even though we did not say it.

Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Motion C1—but before I do so, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that I am in complete agreement with the speech that he made on Motion A1. To recall the words that he used before, the Government were put on notice that they needed to come forward with a solution, but solution there is none. Requiring all businesses to offer guaranteed hours to every worker, including those who do not want them, imposes an unnecessary administrative burden, and one that falls, as my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley has just pointed out, particularly heavily on small businesses. It also sits uneasily with the Government’s stated intention to reduce the regulatory load on businesses by 25%. Should the noble Lord, Lord Fox, choose to test the opinion of the House, he will have our support.

On Motion C1, the Government have to recognise that seasonal work is fundamentally different in nature from permanent or year-round employment, and defining it clearly in statute will ensure that this Bill, as well as any future legislation, properly reflects the realities faced by seasonal industries. Seasonal businesses operate within narrow windows of opportunity; their labour needs rise sharply and predictably at various times of the year, then fall away again. Without a clear and credible definition, there is a risk of uncertainty both for employers trying to comply with the law and for workers trying to understand their rights.

We on these Benches have spoken to many seasonal businesses, large and small, and they remain concerned about the potential impact of the Bill and the absence of a framework that recognises the specific characteristics of seasonal labour. If the Government are not prepared to accept this amendment, we will test the opinion of the House.

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have contributed to the debate today. Let me start by recapping the reason for this measure.

There is a moral case to press ahead with ending exploitative zero-hour contracts. We aim to rebalance the scales so that all the risk associated with insecure work is not placed on workers. By our doing so, work will become more secure and predictable, saving workers in some of the most deprived areas up to £600 in lost income, strengthening the foundations that underpin a modern economy and increasing productivity, rather than the obverse.

On business engagement, we have indeed engaged with businesses and consulted them, both directly and through federations that represent a large number— hundreds and thousands—of small businesses. We will continue to do so as we implement all the measures in the Bill. We are committed to full and comprehensive consultation with businesses big and small and will arrange focus sessions with SMEs specifically to look at the practical implementation, understand any challenges and make sure that we give the right guidance.

I want to reflect on the point about business regulation and the 25% target. We have established a baseline for the administrative burden; the 25% target is about ensuring that regulation is proportionate and efficient and works for business. It is not about blocking regulation that is needed to deliver the Government’s priorities. We want to implement the Bill in a way that delivers the intent as efficiently as possible. For example, the fair work agency will consolidate the functions of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate and the Director of Labour Market Enforcement into a single body, so we are reforming as we go ahead with all these measures, and we believe that, fundamentally, this is about balance.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised the issue of seasonality. Let me reassure noble Lords that the Government are fully conscious of the need to take account of fluctuations in seasonal demand, while ensuring that workers are not left holding all the risk. Under the Bill, there are several ways that an employer could approach seasonal demand while upholding the new rights, depending on circumstances. I set out some of those in my opening speech, but they could be limited-term contracts or guaranteed hours in various ways, such as an annualised hours contract. We think it is important to continue to consult on seasonality.

On growth, we have seen huge progress in foreign direct investment and trade agreements. We are very keen to continue to promote the economic prospects of the country, which is fundamental to improving the productivity of the labour market. In conclusion, I thank noble Lords for their contributions today and I look forward to further discussions on these issues.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, she said that she had consulted representative bodies of industry and commerce, by which I assume she means the FSB, the IoD and the CBI. Can she give us a flavour of those conversations, and identify any organisation that has given wholehearted support to the Bill?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

Of course, we have had many discussions and there have been amendments during the passage of the Bill as a result of some of the consultation we have had with all social partners. We made amendments to the Bill on Report in respect of fire and rehire and the school support staff negotiating body—all sorts of changes or amendments have been made through the consultation process. We have also set out a clear plan for implementation, so that each milestone is there and there is a consultation before that, so that all businesses, large and small, can have the right amount of time to prepare and to get the guidance they need to implement these measures.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. I very much welcome the objective that she set out of reducing red tape. I remind her that the Bill contains 170 statutory instruments. In my experience, every statutory instrument leads to at least one regulation, so perhaps when next she stands up, she can commit to retiring at least one regulation, if not two, for each one that the statutory instruments bring in on the tail of the Bill, if indeed it ever becomes an Act.

The Minister also talked about a moral duty in respect of zero hours. I share that moral duty. Nothing in Motion A1 resiles from that moral duty, and on that basis, I would like to test the will of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 23 and 106 to 120, to which the Commons have disagreed; and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 120C, 120D and 120E in lieu of Lords Amendments 23 and 106 to 120.

120C: Schedule 3, page 189, line 14, for “(3)” substitute “(6)”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 48B to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 48C.

48C: Because the amendment is unnecessary.

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion C. I beg to move.

Motion C1 (as an amendment to Motion C)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Leong]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 60B and 60C, to which the Commons have disagreed; and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 60D and 60E in lieu of Lords Amendments 60B and 60C.

60D: Page 60, line 23, at end insert the following new Clause—
“Guidance about the employment of children on heritage railways
(1) The Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive, acting jointly, must, before the end of the relevant 12-month period, prepare and publish guidance setting out circumstances in which a child carrying out activities for the purposes of a heritage railway in Great Britain is, or is not, to be regarded as employed in an industrial undertaking for the purposes of section 1 of the Employment of Women, Young Persons and Children Act 1920 (restrictions on the employment of children in industrial undertakings).
(2) The Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive, acting jointly—
(a) may from time to time revise guidance published under this section;
(b) must publish any revisions of that guidance.
(3) In this section—
“heritage railway” means a railway which—
(a) is operated for the purposes of—
(i) preserving, recreating or simulating railways of the past, or
(ii) demonstrating or operating historical or special types of motive power or rolling stock, and
(b) is exclusively or primarily used for recreational or educational purposes;
“railway” includes a tramway;
“the relevant 12-month period” means the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 61 and 72, to which the Commons have disagreed; and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 72C in lieu of Lords Amendments 61 and 72.

72C: Clause 59, page 87, line 10, after “case,” insert “the earlier of—
(i) a day specified in, or determined in accordance with, the rules of the union, and
(ii)”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 62, to which the Commons have disagreed; and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 62C in lieu of Lords Amendment 62.

62C: Clause 156, page 151, line 6, at end insert—
“(5) In deciding whether and when to make regulations under subsection (3) bringing section 65 (industrial action ballots: turnout threshold) into force for any purpose, the Secretary of State must have regard to what effect any provision made after this Act is passed for industrial action ballots to be conducted otherwise than by post has had, or is expected to have, on the proportion of those eligible to vote voting in such ballots.
(6) In subsection (5) “industrial action ballot” means a ballot for the purposes of section 226 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (ballots on industrial action).”

Artificial Intelligence Legislation

Baroness Lloyd of Effra Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I declare my relevant interest, as set out in the register, as an adviser to Endava plc and to Simmons and Simmons LLP and as a member of the technology and science advisory committee of the Crown Estate.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)]

I appreciate the significant interest in the Government’s intentions for AI legislation, and I thank the noble Lord for his valuable contributions on the issue. The Government do not speculate on legislation ahead of future parliamentary Sessions, and I cannot confirm the timing of any such Bill. However, we will keep Parliament updated on the timings of any consultations ahead of bringing forward any legislation. We have remained committed to ensuring the UK and its laws are ready for the changes AI will bring.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, when it comes to AI legislation, the position of the previous Government was largely “wait and see”; so it is with this Government. But what is really required if you are an innovator, investor, citizen, creative or consumer is clarity, consistency and certainty. Further, the excellent Ada Lovelace Institute recent research showed that 72% of those surveyed said they would feel more comfortable with AI were it specifically regulated. Would the Minister not agree that, to deliver that clarity, consistency, certainty, comfort and confidence to act, we need a cross-sector, cross-economy, right-sized AI regulation Bill right now?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

I remind the House that AI is already regulated in the UK and we regulate on a context-specific approach. Our regulators can take account of the developments in AI, which are indeed rapid, and ensure that they are tailored. In addition, as noble Lords know, we have got various regulators undertaking regulatory sandboxes and the new proposal for the AI growth lab, which will look across all sectors and allow regulators to collaborate on this quite rapidly changing technological development.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I declare in interest as chair of the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society and as a consultant to DLA Piper on AI policy. The first meeting of the rather grandly named Lords’ AI and copyright parliamentary engagement group takes place tomorrow. Would it not be extraordinary if the Government did not bring forward a Bill in the face of that engagement group’s conclusions and those of the industry working groups? Would any of those discussions not be rendered meaningless without a Bill next year? If a Bill does not come forward, would that not demonstrate the influence of big tech and the major technology companies on the Government?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The issues to which the noble Lord refers have, of course, been extensively debated here. One outcome of conversations during the passing of the data Act was a commitment to have these discussions. I also think it would be premature to decide the nature or timing of legislation until those discussions are completed. Like the noble Lord, I highlight the importance of the parliamentary consultations, the first of which with Peers is indeed happening tomorrow, with the two Secretaries of State.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, given the concerns that exist about the misuse of AI by pernicious actors, can my noble friend the Minister reassure the House that the Government are regularly stress-testing these threats, that we are preparing robust answers to them and that we will not therefore have any catastrophic incidents in this country? Will the lessons from the stress testing, if they exist, inform any future legislation?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for her interest in this area. I can highlight that the AI Security Institute was established to provide the Government with exactly this kind of evidence and respond effectively to emerging AI risks. It has tested more than 30 frontier models, including OpenAI, Google DeepMind, Anthropic and others, and works closely with security experts across government, including the National Cyber Security Centre and Defence Science and Technology Laboratory. This is to ensure the institute’s work informs the preparations against AI-related incidents. We are committed to ensuring the UK is prepared for the changes AI will bring, and the institute’s research will continue to inform our approach.

[Lord Tarassenko (CB)]

My Lords, several European countries, including Italy, the Netherlands and Switzerland, have recently launched their own sovereign large language models to reduce dependence on models from the US and China. Now that hardware compute capabilities are no longer an issue in this country, is it not time for the UK to start developing its own sovereign large language model?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The noble Lord asks a very good question about our sovereign capabilities. The Sovereign AI Unit’s remit spans the full AI stack, including large language models. Our priority is to secure UK access to the best models, including by deepening strategic partnerships and remaining open to backing UK companies to compete. However, we are focusing our efforts where there is greater opportunity for the UK to advance its strategic position in AI, looking across the value chain. This could mean supporting companies developing narrow models in high-impact sectors in which the UK has strengths, such as defence or drug discovery, or backing paradigm-shifting approaches in computing that can outperform incumbents.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, in September the Government announced plans for a national digital identity system—a policy that will have very profound implications for the safe use of AI, particularly agentic AI. Can the Minister confirm that the interaction between the Government’s digital identity scheme and AI systems will be explicitly included within the scope of the consultation? If not, can the Minister commit to ensuring that it is?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The noble Viscount asks about digital ID, as he highlights a proposal which was announced a few months ago. Digital ID will help make it easier for people to access the services they are entitled to and prevent illegal working. It will streamline interactions with the state, saving time and cutting frustrating paperwork. A public consultation on the digital ID will launch in the coming few weeks, to ensure the system is secure, trusted and inclusive. I will take back his specific question on the coverage of the consultation coming up.

[Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)]

I thank the noble Lord. The World Economic Forum has said that dis- and misinformation is the number one threat to economic stability. Generative AI has hugely increased the scale of that threat. There is concern from AI safety groups that companies are not adequately tackling the problem. Can the Minister tell the House whether the Government will take this as seriously as they do cyberattacks?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

I thank the noble Viscount for his question. Strengthening media literacy education is incredibly important: it helps people navigate the growing presence of AI-generated content and it is important in schools and further than that. Noble Lords will remember that we have welcomed the report of the independent Curriculum and Assessment Review, which recommends that children in schools should be taught how to spot fake news and disinformation, including AI-generated content, and help develop critical thinking skills to protect themselves online.

[Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)]

My Lords, I very much welcome the meeting that is taking place tomorrow, which came out of the commitments made by the Government during the passage of the data Bill. However, I understand that, notwithstanding the fact that the Government are not going to say what legislation they are introducing at this point, they are discussing the principles by which they will go forward. Can the Minister commit to the House that one of those principles, given the discussions we had in this House, will be that access to data, particularly around the creative industries, should be with the active consent of creators and rights holders?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

My noble friend highlights one of the important points made during the passage of the Bill. The whole swathe of those discussions, both at technical level and with parliamentary colleagues, is intended to have the views of rights holders and other actors on the table, so that we can work through these at the same time as the AI developments are happening in real time.

[Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)]

My Lords, I note my register of interests, specifically as an adviser to SMEs in AI—VED 3, Automated Analytics and Scrumconnect—and as part of the AI APPG. Let me bring some good news to the House: the UK AI sector is booming. Nearly half of UK businesses’ resilience budgets are now going on AI, agentic AI and technology. This investment been supported by the UK Government’s sector-led, principles-based approach to AI regulation, designed to foster innovation and ensure safety. As the Minister confirms, I hope this flexible model will continue and be central to our strategy. Is the Minister aware that recent analysis shows that the EU’s AI Act has contributed to a 20% decline in AI formations in the region, and up to a €500,000 annual compliance cost for high-risk systems, disproportionately affecting SMEs and deterring investment—outcomes the UK has wisely avoided?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an extremely good point about the way in which we regulate. The UK has a bespoke approach. It is obviously important that we continue to work with other countries, as AI development is not something that happens only in the UK. Therefore, there is an element of needing to talk to the US and the EU, for example, about the developments. The noble Lord is absolutely right that our approach here is designed to safeguard security, build trust and get the economic benefits for the people of the UK.

Protection of Children Codes of Practice

Baroness Lloyd of Effra Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, not much we debate in your Lordships’ House unites us so thoroughly as our shared recognition that children must be protected from harmful online content and behaviours. I am delighted that we are as one when it comes to the importance of shielding young people from extreme pornography, content promoting self-harm or suicide, or other serious risks.

This makes it all the more important to scrutinise how the Government and Ofcom have chosen to implement these protections. The role of the draft codes of practice, laid in April this year and brought into effect in July, is to translate Parliament’s intentions into practical rules for service providers. As the noble Lord, Lord Russell, set out so clearly, there are some serious concerns about whether these codes are achieving their stated objectives, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for bringing this important Motion to the House today and for giving us the chance to air our views.

There is some evidence that the codes are being applied in a way that risks overreach and unintended consequences. Some platforms, such as X and Reddit, in attempting to comply, blocked wide-ranging content, including parliamentary debates on grooming gangs and posts relating to the wars in Ukraine and Gaza. Several experts have warned that such overapplication risks stifling legitimate public debate. It has even been suggested that some platforms deliberately overapply some rules as a way to influence government towards weakening them.

The Act was always designed to respect freedom of expression—political and otherwise—while protecting internet users, especially children, from harm. The Government’s own guidance confirms this, but clearly the practical effect has not always to date reflected that intent.

There also exist concerns about the complexity and accessibility of the codes. Platforms, parents and of course children themselves in some instances may struggle to understand what duties are required and how to enforce them. The guidance is hundreds of pages long and, while Ofcom has issued advice on risk assessments and age-verification measures, there is a real danger that the practical realities of compliance, particularly for smaller providers, leave gaps in protection. Complexity should not become a barrier to the very protections these codes are meant to provide.

We have also been discussing the iterative approach taken by Ofcom. Presenting the codes as a first step, to be refined over time, is in principle essential, for two reasons. The first is that, as we know, this is a pioneering piece of legislation and we must remain open to adapting it. The second is that I am afraid that the people we are up against are inventive users of fast-moving technology.

However, the iterative approach is also clearly creating uncertainty. Civil society organisations have reported that their concerns were not fully addressed during consultation. Children face immediate risks and it is imperative that the Government ensure that these gaps are closed without delay. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, cited the statistic that a young life aged between 10 and 19 is lost to suicide every week where technology has been a factor. The codes should not act or be viewed as a ceiling for safety standards. Rather, they must set a floor for safety standards and be subject to firm and measurable enforcement.

Enforcement and proportionality are, of course, critical. The Act grants Ofcom significant powers, including fines, criminal liability and restrictions on financial and commercial arrangements. Yet there are practical challenges to ensuring that these powers are applied in a proportionate and evidence-based way. The critical challenge facing the Government as they operate the Act’s machinery is to protect children while avoiding excessive interference with legitimate content and adult access to lawful material.

All that said, we on these Benches do have questions over the Government’s handling of these codes. Our purpose is to challenge the Government to deliver children’s online safety effectively and proportionately. While I welcome the Minister to her place and wish her the very best for her very important role, particularly in this respect, I ask her for some greater clarity, if she is able to provide it, on three strands of Ofcom’s work. First, how will Ofcom monitor implementation by platforms? Secondly, how will it ensure that civil society is genuinely incorporated, and of course that consultees recognise that they have been listened to? Thirdly, how will it address current gaps in coverage without delay?

I am delighted to be participating in this important debate and to have the opportunity to seek these assurances from the Government. We must see rapid action to ensure that the codes protect children in practice, do not inadvertently suppress legitimate debate, and are accessible and enforceable in the real world. I support the scrutiny behind this regret Motion and hope that, when the Minister rises, she will provide answers that reassure us all that the protection of children online is being delivered with both effectiveness and proportionality.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions today, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for initiating the debate. I absolutely acknowledge the huge expertise in the Room today. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for his suggestion of further discussions with individual Members.

I found reading the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report an excellent basis for this discussion. That committee plays a very important role, as do other committees, such as the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee and the House of Commons Science, Innovation and Technology Committee. The role of ongoing scrutiny by all these bodies is absolutely essential. On the matter of the specific committee that the noble Lord, Lord Russell, mentioned, it would be for the House to decide whether that would be set up to monitor this legislation and the codes.

As others have mentioned, we are working closely with Ofcom to monitor the effectiveness of the Online Safety Act. While the early signs are encouraging, the true test will be whether adults and children are having a safer online experience. Ofcom has put in place a robust monitoring and evaluation program, tracking changes firms are making in response to regulation, gathering data from the supervised services and commissioning research to measure impact. Some of that research has been mentioned in the course of the debate. It is quite extensive and provides a lot of information to civil society organisations, Members of this House and others.

What binds us together is the determination to do everything we need to do to keep children safe online, as built on the evidence. That is a priority. The previous Secretary of State, in issuing his statement of strategic priorities, made it clear that the first priority was safety by design. That builds on the safety by design measures within the codes, such as the safer design of algorithms to filter out harmful content from children’s feeds. On 25 July, Ofcom published its statement, setting out what it proposes to do in consequence of that statement of strategic priorities. Under the Act, it must publish further annual reviews of what action it has taken as a result of the statement of strategic priorities, including on safety by design.

We have taken action to strengthen the regulatory framework by making further offences priority offences under the Online Safety Act, reflecting the most serious and prevalent illegal content and online activity—for example, laying an SI to make cyberflashing, encouraging self-harm and the sharing of intimate images without consent priority offences under the Act.

Others have mentioned the importance of basing our decisions on good evidence of what is happening. Recognising that further research was required to improve the evidence base, the Government have commissioned a feasibility study to explore the impact of smartphones and social media use on children.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

On the point about evidence, I am absolutely not an expert in this but the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, definitely is. I think it would be a very good use of the Minister’s time to meet with her. She described a situation where the research that is being done is at a population level, where changes and attribution will be difficult to discern. I understood the noble Baroness to be making the case that—I do not want to misrepresent her—what clinicians are seeing has a lot of parallels with her review of the Tavistock. On the one hand, you wait for great population-level surveys, but you need to act on what is being seen. It is important that the Government look at both.

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that suggestion. I would be very happy to speak with the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, and leverage her experience in drawing up the right models of evidence-gathering and research.

To come back to the core of some of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and others were making about the implementation of the Act through the codes, Ofcom has met the 18-month statutory timeline that was set by Parliament to finalise the guidance and codes of practice relating to illegal harms and the protection of children. The illegal content safety duties came into force in March this year, meaning that all companies in scope will need to protect all users, including children, from illegal content and criminal behaviour on their services. On 24 April this year, Ofcom submitted to the Secretary of State the final draft protection codes of conduct. That regime came into force on 25 July, following parliamentary scrutiny.